Taylor controlling Richards kick offs

[hobbo]

You would think the plan would be for Pat to kick-off as least amount of times possible rather than relying on them to get the ball back…..would be more beneficial one would think..

You need to put points on for that to happen :laughing:

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

I might be wrong…but I thought you kicked off after having points scored against you apart from the mandatory start to a game or after half time......I would be stoked if Pat only had to kick off once a game....think about it....

Is that you happy :laughing:

Have you been drinking at lunch again ???

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

 

[Geo]

You would think the plan would be for Pat to kick-off as least amount of times possible rather than relying on them to get the ball back…..would be more beneficial one would think..

You need to put points on for that to happen :laughing:

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

I might be wrong…but I thought you kicked off after having points scored against you apart from the mandatory start to a game or after half time......I would be stoked if Pat only had to kick off once a game....think about it....

Is that you happy :laughing:

Have you been drinking at lunch again ???

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

:laughing: No but it looks like you have…...have it your way Pat can kick off 7-10 times a game....in the hope we get it back twice...

 

[hobbo]

You need to put points on for that to happen :laughing:

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

I might be wrong…but I thought you kicked off after having points scored against you apart from the mandatory start to a game or after half time......I would be stoked if Pat only had to kick off once a game....think about it....

Is that you happy :laughing:

Have you been drinking at lunch again ???

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

:laughing: No but it looks like you have…...have it your way Pat can kick off 7-10 times a game....in the hope we get it back twice...

The only way we'll get our hands on the ball after conceding a try is if the NRL start using mod league rules !!!

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

 

[VanillaThunder]

So has anybody asked Pat why? No? I did'nt think so. Another rumour given credence by the gullible Taylor haters. Ho Hum.

I'd love to share your optimism about JT, but I can't think of a single reason why Pat would suddenly decide it's not worth it any more. I don't imagine he was forced to do it under Potter either.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

What planet does he live on?

Uranus would be good. He never get to training from there.

 

[jirskyr]

So has anybody asked Pat why? No? I did'nt think so. Another rumour given credence by the gullible Taylor haters. Ho Hum.

I'd love to share your optimism about JT, but I can't think of a single reason why Pat would suddenly decide it's not worth it any more. I don't imagine he was forced to do it under Potter either.

Before too many more people go jumping down JT's throat, also give some consideration to the fact that he might be right about the tactic?

Fans will remember Richards' awesome kicks and the few times we got the ball back. But do they also track the stats for the number of times we don't get ball back, or how often the field position leads to tries, or kicks out on full? It is entirely plausible that the stats on the towering kickoffs are quite damning, we might be giving away a lot of field position and resulting tries. If JT is anything, he is very stats-driven, you can hear him spouting these, off the top of his head, during interviews.

The real question I have is, if spiral kickoffs are statistically not a good return, why are the set-end torp bombs a tactic we employ so consistently? I can understand the concept behind what the bomb is trying to achieve, to allow a contest and prevent the opposition from getting a quick play the ball from a strong carry. But surely the same principle applies to kick-offs?

 

[VanillaThunder]

So has anybody asked Pat why? No? I did'nt think so. Another rumour given credence by the gullible Taylor haters. Ho Hum.

I'd love to share your optimism about JT, but I can't think of a single reason why Pat would suddenly decide it's not worth it any more. I don't imagine he was forced to do it under Potter either.

Before too many more people go jumping down JT's throat, also give some consideration to the fact that he might be right about the tactic?

Fans will remember Richards' awesome kicks and the few times we got the ball back. But do they also track the stats for the number of times we don't get ball back, or how often the field position leads to tries, or kicks out on full? It is entirely plausible that the stats on the towering kickoffs are quite damning, we might be giving away a lot of field position and resulting tries. If JT is anything, he is very stats-driven, you can hear him spouting these, off the top of his head, during interviews.

The real question I have is, if spiral kickoffs are statistically not a good return, why are the set-end torp bombs a tactic we employ so consistently? I can understand the concept behind what the bomb is trying to achieve, to allow a contest and prevent the opposition from getting a quick play the ball from a strong carry. But surely the same principle applies to kick-offs?

They may not have resulted in the best field position every time, but it put a genuine fear factor in to the opposition when they know they've got big Marty barrelling down just waiting to lay in to them, or Teddy sprinting through to contest the catch. It also robbed the oppositon of any forward momentum they could have generated through a big forward running off the back fence. More often than not it was a half/back catching the ball and getting tackled almost immediately. Our line is set and they've got no momentum to start the second tackle. I understand JT is incredibly strong on statistics, and that's why I'm also assuming it's under his instruction that the kick offs have been shelved.

You raise a good point about the bombs too, though at a guess I'm assuming he is just trying to start them off as far away from our try line as possible - which is necessary given how we defend.

 

[Eddie]

So has anybody asked Pat why? No? I did'nt think so. Another rumour given credence by the gullible Taylor haters. Ho Hum.

I'd love to share your optimism about JT, but I can't think of a single reason why Pat would suddenly decide it's not worth it any more. I don't imagine he was forced to do it under Potter either.

Before too many more people go jumping down JT's throat, also give some consideration to the fact that he might be right about the tactic?

Fans will remember Richards' awesome kicks and the few times we got the ball back. But do they also track the stats for the number of times we don't get ball back, or how often the field position leads to tries, or kicks out on full? It is entirely plausible that the stats on the towering kickoffs are quite damning, we might be giving away a lot of field position and resulting tries. If JT is anything, he is very stats-driven, you can hear him spouting these, off the top of his head, during interviews.

The real question I have is, if spiral kickoffs are statistically not a good return, why are the set-end torp bombs a tactic we employ so consistently? I can understand the concept behind what the bomb is trying to achieve, to allow a contest and prevent the opposition from getting a quick play the ball from a strong carry. But surely the same principle applies to kick-offs?

You answered your own question about bombs with your second last paragraph.

Taylor does not like any risks or chance. Why spiral a bomb when it COUlD go haywire. He would much rather the meat and potatoes no risk football, uninspiring bomb that allows a certain outcome every time.

He goes off stats, and numbers and his own style of footy from the roosters blue print.

This much is very clear with Taylor. And whether he is right or wrong with his number crunching ill tell you one stat that is damning for him - the football we are playing we are on track for the spoon.

in the end they are the only numbers that really matter.

I

 

[innsaneink]

We are bombing into the opposition 20 to avoid seven tackle sets against us.
Same reason for the controlled kick offs…

 

[tigerbill]

Stats. It's what I do all day. Got a PhD in it. Great for saying if a samples is representative of a population or if two measures are significantly different. For sports it's so easy to get it wrong, to isolate one measure from it's context. Some stats are the result of a team losing not the cause. In NRL attitude, intimidation and morale are so important.

 

[Tim Sheens]

So Taylor doesn't think the tactic works off kick offs but insists on his halves bombing from the halfway? Why does he see it as a good tactic in general play but not off the kick off? It's the same concept.

Yep, that's the way I see it, six of one, half dozen of the other.

 

[Eddie]

In NRL attitude, intimidation and morale are so important.

Well said and you cant measure those stats.

Another factor is having a coach you would run threw a brick wall for.

Taylor with all his stats and white boards, he might be the smartest bloke in the world but it wont get him far.

 

[Russell]

In NRL attitude, intimidation and morale are so important.

Well said and you cant measure those stats.

Another factor is having a coach you would run threw a brick wall for.

Taylor with all his stats and white boards, he might be the smartest bloke in the world but it wont get him far.

You need to give him a go first.

Then see how far it gets him.

He has only run 18 metres in a 100 metre race so far.

 

[barra]

I can see Taylor's POV on the kick-offs, I just don't agree with it. I love Pat's big kick-offs and personally would like to see them continue. After all, it is something we have that other teams don't and something the commentators continually marvelled at. It's exciting. I believe if we practiced the offense of it enough AS A TEAM (not just a one-out go-for-broke chaser which is what injured Teddy) it would genuinely strike fear in the opposition.

But, what I really don't get, and what drives me nuts, is our inept kicking in general play. Fair enough, we don't want to give the opposition 7 tackle sets… but with a mid-field bomb that lands near the 20 anyway, backed up by a nothing chase and defensive line, gives them the first tackle on the 30 way too often.

So that's effectively the same thing, right?? Does my head in...

 

[Sabre]

I alluded to this last week. Seems like BigPat has been told you must do the meat and potatoes kick offs.

Lets not try and use the weapon and get the ball back.

No wonder the body language is average if he is exerting this type of control.

SMH
\
\
Tackle 5 - Richards helicopter grounded

Wests Tigers fans might have noticed that Pat Richards' popular 'helicopter' kick-offs have been few and far between in recent weeks. Last year under Mick Potter, the Tigers were deploying the tactic on just about every re-start in a bid to regain possession. **But new coach Jason Taylor has crunched the numbers and actually realised the kick-offs were less effective than they seemed, resulting more often than not in opposition teams starting their sets in ideal field position.**

I would like to see the numbers because I don't believe this is true.
What was so good about Richards kick offs was that we had a 50/50 chance of regathering the ball, and even if we didn't they were so long and so high that we could still easily make the first tackle on their 10m line.

 

[happy_tiger]

We are bombing into the opposition 20 to avoid seven tackle sets against us.
Same reason for the controlled kick offs…

Exactly Ink

Last two weeks we conceded 2 20 metre 7 tackle taps and our opposition have scored each time

 

[Tim Sheens]

We are bombing into the opposition 20 to avoid seven tackle sets against us.
Same reason for the controlled kick offs…

Exactly Ink

Last two weeks we conceded 2 20 metre 7 tackle taps and our opposition have scored each time

It is a stupid rule that needs clarification. Fancy getting penalised for a missed field goal or grubber attemp, ridiculous.

 

[happy_tiger]

We are bombing into the opposition 20 to avoid seven tackle sets against us.
Same reason for the controlled kick offs…

Exactly Ink

Last two weeks we conceded 2 20 metre 7 tackle taps and our opposition have scored each time

It is a stupid rule that needs clarification. Fancy getting penalised for a missed field goal or grubber attemp, ridiculous.

What probably annoys me the most with these is most clubs race the ball back to the 20 to take them and the advantage involved

We rarely do this , and on many occasions negate the advantage by passing the ball back to the man on the 20 who takes the tap which lets the defence set itself

 

[Yossarian]

Well Taylor has obviously sat down and watched every kick off and done the figures. I'm pretty confident nobody on here has done the same. Sure they look good but the occasional dropped ball or reclaimed possession isn't worth having the other mob starting outside the 20m. Well that's what Taylor has decided anyway.

 

[Yossarian]

We are bombing into the opposition 20 to avoid seven tackle sets against us.
Same reason for the controlled kick offs…

Exactly Ink

Last two weeks we conceded 2 20 metre 7 tackle taps and our opposition have scored each time

It is a stupid rule that needs clarification. Fancy getting penalised for a missed field goal or grubber attemp, ridiculous.

Agreed kicks from within 20m and genuine field goal attempts should be exempt. As it is you can touch the ball 20cm from the dead ball line and concede the 7 tackle set. Given that it was brought in to stop the negative tactic of deliberately kicking dead it's now punishing attacking play.